Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3221, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Government takeover. We have seen and heard a lot of those two words lately--in the credit markets, the banking sector, the automotive industry, and even the building of schools. Then there's health care-- an industry that assumes one-sixth of America's gross domestic product. We're not talking about health care today, but perhaps we should be.

The vote we will take on student lending is a culmination of a plan set in motion more than a decade and a half ago--and one that bears an eerily strong resemblance to the health care debate that rages on today.

In 1993, Congress created a so-called government option for college loans. The idea of this Direct Loan Program was to introduce competition and hold down costs. Sound familiar? Just 16 years later, we're about to vote on a plan that would completely and permanently eliminate the private sector's role in originating and raising capital for Federal student loans. In its place will be a one-size-fits-all Federal loan model that requires the U.S. Treasury to directly lend tens of billions of dollars each year--tens of billions of dollars we don't have, and will be forced to borrow.

So why is Congress intervening to declare one program the winner? If it's truly about competition, the best program ought to win in the marketplace. In fact, one program has won--the public-private partnership of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, which is the choice of three-quarters of colleges and universities today.

By eliminating the FFEL program, we will lose the choice, the competition, and innovation of the private sector. That includes everything from technological innovations to loan discounts and borrower services. We will also lose jobs--an estimated 30,000 or more in congressional districts from coast to coast.

And what are we getting in return? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tout this legislation as being fiscally responsible. Respectfully, I beg to differ.

The bill is awash with new entitlement programs, including a new early childhood program to develop and fund programs at the State level; a new program to build and renovate schools;

and a new program to bolster community colleges and involve the Federal Government in developing online curriculum.

Add to these new programs the cost of expanding Pell Grants, funding for Minority Serving Institutions and the Perkins Loan Program, and we have on our hands a massive entitlement spending spree. This spending is allegedly paid for by $87 billion in so-called savings from elimination of the FFEL program. Unfortunately, the numbers just don't add up.

CBO tells us the bill will require $13.5 billion in new discretionary spending--real money that simply isn't counted in the mandatory score. CBO also tells us that, using current figures, the Pell Grant expansion will cost $11.4 billion more than scorekeepers originally predicted-- again, a cost not counted for in the ``official'' score. That means this bill will cost closer to $15 billion over the next 10 years--and when market risk is factored in, the cost spikes to nearly $50 billion more.

Madam Chair, there's a better way. Later in the debate, I will join the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie, in offering an amendment to stabilize student lending by extending programs approved on a bipartisan basis last year.

With this plan, we can put $13 billion towards deficit reduction and, most importantly, we can convene a nonpartisan commission to study long-term structural changes to our student lending systems. In short, it's a thoughtful, reasonable approach to determine what's best for students, schools, and taxpayers alike.

I urge my colleagues to slow down, take a breath, and ask yourself whether another government takeover is what we need right now. I think the answer is a clear ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chair, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Madam Chair, could I inquire how much time is remaining, please?

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a member of the committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, may I inquire again as to the time remaining.

Madam Chair, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from East Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will continue to reserve.

Madam Chair, can I inquire of the Chair the remaining time?

Madam Chair, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

It is clear, Madam Chair, that there is some dispute over what this does to the deficit. But I would argue that looking at the latest information from, as my friend from New Jersey says, the fair, nonpartisan arbiter of the facts, the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation will add to the deficit somewhere between $15 billion and $50 billion, subject to debate.

What is absolutely clear is that forcing the public option is a government takeover. It does grow a government with more new programs, and it does force job losses. I think that's indisputable.

Madam Chair, this is bad policy, it's a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I have got to admit that this manager's amendment does make some helpful changes, and I appreciate that. However, it fails to address the fundamental flaws with the underlying bill, and for that reason I must oppose it.

I do appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to incorporate some modest bipartisan changes. For example, Mr. Platts' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers.

And despite these improvements, the bill still imposes a heavy cost on Americans today and in the future. It will cost students and schools the benefits of choice, competition and innovation. It will cost our workforce tens of thousands of jobs, including over 600 jobs in my home State of Minnesota and over 1,000 jobs in Chairman Miller's home State of California.

It could cost taxpayers billions of dollars and increased deficit spending.

So, despite the important improvements that the manager's amendment makes, I am still unable to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Miller for the improvements that his manager's amendment has made to the bill.

As I stated earlier, the fundamental flaws with this legislation still remain, even though there are parts, which as he correctly stated, that some members of the community certainly support, some members of the business community. Many of us support, for example, Mr. Platts' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers, and I'm glad those are included in the manager's amendment. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying bill is still flawed public policy.

We have heard again and again from speakers tonight that this is going to put money back into the Treasury and reduce the deficit, and yet we have provided information from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that's not the case. This is going to increase the deficit; it's going to increase the debt.

I was staggered the other day, Madam Chair, to look and see that we are now projecting, with the latest numbers from the White House, that within the next 10 years, the national debt will have grown to $21 trillion. And this bill, the underlying bill, adds new programs, programs that will be chronically underfunded, will nevertheless compete for money, will grow that deficit spending. So while I appreciate the improvements that the manager's amendment has made, I still must oppose this.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take a moment, reflecting on the debate that we just had with Mr. Hoekstra's amendment, because it strikes to the underlying bill. And that's the problem here: Not this amendment--the underlying bill.

The chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman, pointed out that there was a broken promise. And I'm sad to say it was entirely predictable that President Bush would be blamed for breaking a promise. But I would point out that we have had Presidents going back for years and Congresses going back for years and this Congress today that is failing to live up to a promise made many years ago, and that's to provide its share, its full funding of special education under IDEA.

And so whether we're talking about green, high-performing schools as a new program or many of the new programs introduced in this legislation, it seems to me we ought to fulfill that promise first rather than starting new programs which will be chronically underfunded and will be competing for that essential funding under IDEA.

So, again, the problem here is not this amendment. I'm going to support this amendment. It's the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I very much appreciate his leadership and his taking the time to do this.

I wonder if the gentleman would mind putting up that first chart, because it strikes me that it's a pretty complicated chart, as the gentleman said. I found that, when I was back in my home State of Minnesota and when I was traveling around, talking to groups, I used that chart a number of times.

I want to point out that it was, indeed, prepared by the Republican staff, but there is nothing on that chart that isn't in the bill. That is a best-effort depiction to describe what this bill does.

Exactly. Exactly. It is over a 1,000-page bill, and it is complicated. The reason I asked the gentleman to put it back up is that I've been struck by a number of proponents, the supporters of this bill, including, frankly, the President of the United States, who've said, Well, the public option is just a little slice. It's not everything. It's a little slice of this reform.

So, one time, I tried to look at that and ask, Well, where is that little slice? Can I take the public option out of this, off that chart? Can I find that little slice?

It turns out that you cannot find that. It is interwoven. There is a Bureau of Health Information; there is a Health Choices Administration and a Health Choices Commissioner. You can't just go and remove one of those little squares and say, Well, that's the public option, and we're left with a simpler bill of reform without this government-run option. It's an integral, woven part of that whole 1,100-page package.

Well said.

Let me make one more point before you move on. I think you made another very important point.

You said this is the Democrats' health plan.

That's really too bad. There is not a drop of Republican ink on the 1,100-page bill. That bill moved through three committees in this body, in this House, and Republicans tried repeatedly to make amendments but without success. The amendments failed largely on a party-line vote. So we have a Democrats' bill.

I thank the gentleman. That's an excellent point.

It seems to me that we should not be at a point where we are competing the Democrats' 1,100-page bill with, presumably, the Republicans' 800-page bill, 900-page bill or 1,000-page bill. What we should do to get a bipartisan solution is take that whole 1,100 pages and push it off. We should set aside the bills that have been introduced, and we should sit down and see where Republicans and Democrats could actually agree on something.

A Republican proposal we've discussed many times is allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 25 years old. If you just did that one thing, if we sat down, Republicans and Democrats, and said we're going to push all this aside and we're going to push a reset button and we're going to agree on this one thing, you would take 7 million of the uninsured and they'd be insured. There are many things we could agree on, but not dealing with that.

Well, let me pick up on this point of a bipartisan effort.

I serve also on the Armed Services Committee, as the gentleman knows. You will recall that earlier this year, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the then-ranking Republican member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) said we ought to see if we can do something about the defense acquisitions system.

Everybody knows that it is a mess. Hundreds of dollars for hammers, huge cost overruns. We need to fix that system.

And, if you will recall, the approach was to get some Republicans and some Democrats to sit down. And our friend from New Jersey, Rob Andrews, was chosen to represent the Democrats and our friend, Mike Conaway, from Texas was chosen. They sat down together and they wrote legislation.

It actually solved some problems. You will recall when they finished they had a pretty good bill, experts agreed it would help, and it passed that committee unanimously.

And it should, because that's the way to solve the problem. You cannot take behind closed doors, one party, go write a bill, an 1,100-page bill, at a cost that, oh, it depends on what given moment you are looking at it, but it's somewhere well over a trillion dollars, and present it and say, frankly, as the President did, Well, I am open to suggestions.

Well, the best suggestion I would offer to the President and to my colleagues, the majority party here is, let's set that aside and sit down and see if there is something we can't agree on here.

And don't do as the lady did, a wonderful lady when I was back in Minnesota said, Congressman, is there some piece of this that if you took it out, it would be okay. And it's back to your wonderful example of pulling the strings on a rug. Pretty soon it doesn't function at all. You can't reach in there and take out one little piece and say, Well, yes, I could support that if we just took out the Health Choices Administration.

If you take the Health Choices Administration out, it collapses. That's important.

Well, if the gentleman would yield one more time, I hate to interrupt, but you have got a depiction there of the unfunded liabilities, how much more we expect to spend on those programs than we expect to bring in.

And that goes out for a number of years, I see out there, 2008, 2052 and so forth. And we do need to look out there, we do need to recognize those unfunded liabilities. We do need to address that.

But you don't need to look that far. Right now, with the latest projections that have come out of the White House, taking the projected deficit spending, how much more we are going to spend than we are going to take in over the next 10 years, increasing that from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. Trillion dollars. It used to be hard to say that. But now, we just talk about trillions.

Trillions now. If you just take the next 10 years, the current debt, which is a staggering number in itself, it is approaching $12 trillion right now. The Secretary of the Treasury is asking us to lift the cap, the statutory cap on the debt, and you add the $9 trillion of projected deficits--I ask the gentleman, what does the number $21 trillion of national debt in the next 10 years do?

And that's without counting the cap-and-trade bill which passed so early in the House and shouldn't have passed at all. It doesn't count this health care bill, which already we know, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the bill that's in front of us, H.R. 3200, almost $240 billion of deficit spending, and it doesn't count for the out years where the deficit runs over $60 billion. Yes, it's a staggering amount of money.

Absolutely, it does. And speaking of grandchildren, my wife and I are planning to travel down and spend a little time here in a week or two with the grandchildren. I have four wonderful grandchildren. I always say best grandchildren, but then I run up against somebody like the gentleman who actually thinks his grandchildren are the best.

We are going down to visit them. I am thinking I should just get down on my knees and thank them, because they are going to pay all these bills, and it's just not right.

Those numbers and that chart, I would say to the gentleman, are terrifying. And as I mentioned, when you bring it down much, much closer, 2019 on that chart is way over there towards----

Well, I take your point. I am, of course, very proud of my parents, part of that Greatest Generation. My father landed in Normandy, fought his way across Europe and part of that world.

Well, they may have been together. My father was, as I said, he landed on Normandy, fought in the Battle of the Bulge. But they came back, and they did make sacrifices. But it has been, as the gentleman suggested, the American way for all generations before us that the next generation has been in better shape, if you will, been left in better condition.

And it's not that certainly you and I and people in this room don't want things to be worse for our grandchildren, but if we are not careful about how we build this public policy, things are going to be worse. And I would argue, we have not been careful, that we are running a deficit this year alone that was unthinkable 6 months ago, unthinkable.

And that national debt I mentioned, unimaginable that we could possibly consider the mess our grandchildren are going to be in.

Minnesota--our neighbor to the north is, indeed, Canada. And I am very proud to say that Minnesota is a destination State for health care. We have one of the most famous hospitals, clinics in the world, the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota. And the thing about Canada is, if they can't get care in Canada, if they get tired of waiting in line, which they do wait in lines, and they are denied care, they come see us in Minnesota.

So it's expensive in Canada. The gentleman's point is, it is, indeed, expensive. But I am arguing, worse than that, it doesn't work for many, many of our Canadian neighbors. They cannot afford to wait in those lines.

And then if you are not, you come to Minnesota. So I take the gentleman's point.

Madam speaker, I rise today to congratulate the community of Chanhassen, a town I am proud to say is part of Minnesota's Second Congressional District.

In naming Chanhassen one of the top 5 ``Best Places to Live in America,'' Money magazine confirmed what many of us in the great state of Minnesota already knew; Chanhassen is an outstanding city.

As the nation's economy has faltered, Chanhassen has flourished. From 2000 to 2008 Chanhassen averaged a 28 percent job growth rate, providing its residents with the economic security necessary to raise their families.

Along with providing economic security, Chanhassen's 11 freshwater lakes and 34 parks offer a pristine wilderness retreat that epitomizes the land of 10,000 lakes.

With its strong economy and Minnesota beauty, it is no surprise Chanhassen was named the second best small town in America.

Congratulations, again, to the entire community of Chanhassen for earning this prestigious distinction. You are second in the nation, and first in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know here today, the Democrat leadership in this House is bringing forth a health care reform bill with a public option for the stated purpose of instituting competition with the private sector and making the private sector insurance business better. At the same time, they are bringing forward legislation to reform student lending.

Today, there is a private option preferred by 80 percent of the colleges and universities in this country and a public option, where the government takes over the student lending business. The legislation that we are going to bring up perhaps this week in this House eliminates the private option and leaves only the public option. It kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it, about the designs on the future of the public option in health care?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 483, and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, for his very kind remarks.

I'm a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and a proud one at that, and a member of Post 210 in my hometown of Lakeville. The VFW is not just a gang of old guys sitting around. These are real patriots, real Americans who have sacrificed for our country.

The VFW traces its roots all the way back to 1899 when veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection founded local organizations to secure rights and benefits for their service. Before that time, as has been mentioned, many of our veterans would return home wounded or sick and there was no medical care or veterans pension for them. They were left to care for themselves.

The founders of the VFW sought to remedy that and provide support and encouragement to all of our veterans who had served in foreign wars. Their mission statement, ``To honor the dead by helping the living.'' Over time, their mission expanded to ``ensuring rights, remembering sacrifices, promoting patriotism, performing community services, and advocating for a strong national defense.''

Mr. Speaker, some of these veterans go down to the cemetery, the national cemetery, Snelling, in Minnesota every day to perform services to honor those who have passed, to fire the salute, to fold the flag, and they do it sometimes when the temperature is way below zero. And some of these veterans now are in their late seventies and eighties, but there's a dedication here that I think we should all be aware of.

The VFW has a rich history of advocacy, playing an instrumental role in establishing the Veterans Administration, creating the GI Bill, developing the National Cemetery System, and fighting to ensure combat- wounded veterans from all wars receive proper compensation.

In addition, the VFW has been a powerful force behind the creation of the Vietnam, the Korean War, World War II, and Women in Military Service Memorials; and aren't they fantastic. There's nothing that lifts your spirits like taking a group of veterans down to the World War II Memorial and seeing the joy in their faces as they get that fantastic experience.

Today, the VFW has grown to more than 2.3 million members worldwide, and it continues to advocate for all of our veterans of foreign wars.

I applaud the members of the VFW for their continued commitment to one another and to this great Nation. I am humbled by their work on behalf of our veterans, and I am honored to speak on behalf of this resolution.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 483.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also have no more speakers. So, again, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of this rule. Yet again, this majority is stifling debate, and it is limiting opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to have a say in how we fund vital and some not so vital spending programs. Unfortunately, this time, it comes at the expense of some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I am here because I had hoped to debate an amendment that would benefit every school in America and would begin to fulfill a commitment that has been slighted by Congress for far too long. This amendment, offered by Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas and myself, would have provided critical support for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.

This act was created in 1975 to help States provide a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. At that time, Congress told the States that Congress would provide 40 percent of the excess costs of educating these students. Now, almost 35 years later, that funding stands below 17 percent, and even with the onetime spike of the stimulus bill, we fall far short of the 40 percent. We are overdue in keeping our promises here. We must fulfill this commitment. Our amendment would have taken a small step toward that goal by giving the IDEA an additional $1 billion this year. Had it been ruled in order, this amendment would have increased funding for IDEA to 18.3 percent, and it would have put us on a course toward meeting this obligation for the long term.

This may be seen as a small step, but Mr. Tiahrt and I believe it is time to put first things first, and that means living up to our funding commitments under IDEA before we create and expand unnecessary programs that are contained in this bill. If we were to fully fund IDEA, our local schools would have more of their own money to use for their specific needs, whether that is recruiting new teachers and the best new technology, reducing class sizes, or encouraging community service.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of amendment that should have been made in order. It is 100 percent germane. It addresses priorities within the confines of the jurisdiction of this bill.

Should we spend more money on a new program or should we meet our commitment? We, the Members of this body, all of us, ought to have the

chance to say where those priorities lie. Do they lie with our schools across the board, with every school in America? Do they lie with our children's special needs or do they lie with some new program? That is a fair debate and one we ought to be having.

What has happened is, perhaps the chairman, perhaps the Rules Committee chairman, perhaps leadership on the other side has decided what those priorities ought to be, and the rest of us will have no say in making that determination. This body is supposed to have the opportunity to represent our constituents, to represent our best judgment and to give us a say in where those priorities are, and this rule denies that.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of amendment which should have been made in order during today's debate. It is completely germane. It is all about priorities in education funding.

As Mr. Tiahrt said, this motion to recommit would increase funding for IDEA by $1 billion. We have for over 35 years fallen short of our commitment, the government's commitment, to fund special education and provide relief to every school in America. This bill would provide relief to every school in your districts. Even with the one-time spike in IDEA funding provided by the stimulus bill, we fall short of reaching the 40 percent threshold that Mr. Tiahrt discussed.

What this motion to recommit would do would increase that percentage of funding from the 17 percent where it sits to 18.3 percent in the base. We need to get that base up and let our superintendents, our principals, our teachers, our parents, our families know that that money is going to be there for the long term.

We take money from some other programs, absolutely. I am arguing that those programs, some of them brand new, some of them with hundreds of millions of dollars, may be important, but not as important as this. This is the debate that we should have had this morning. It's the debate that we are having now.

I am asking my colleagues to help us start to meet our obligation. Let's help our children with special needs.

Offered By: Mr. Kline of Minnesota

Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 19, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $195,000,000)''.

Page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $195,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $50,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $130,000,000)''.

Page 8, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $15,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $300,000,000)''.

Page 84, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 84, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 86, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $148,000,000)''.

Page 87, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $38,000,000)''.

Page 91, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,000,150,000)''.

Page 91, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $1,000,150,000)''.

Page 94, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $88,000,000)''.

Page 94, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $4,400,000)''.

Page 94, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $83,600,000)''.

Page 95, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $88,000,000)''.

Page 107, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $111,615,000)''.

Page 107, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $8,997,000)''.

Page 107, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $102,618,000)''.

Page 107, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $21,607,000)''.

Page 107, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $7,500,000)''.

Page 107, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Page 108, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $5,210,000)''.

Page 108, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $47,139,000)''.

Page 109, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $9,208,000)''.

Page 109, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $1,188,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, people are asking where are the jobs.

As my friend from Indiana said moments ago, we just came out of amending a bill in the Education and Labor Committee where we wiped out the private sector in the student lending business, tens of thousands of jobs just erased.

As all my colleagues know, this House, this Congress, passed a stimulus bill which was supposed to create jobs. Instead, we've been losing millions of jobs.

I find it interesting that the Republicans offered an alternative to that stimulus bill which would have cut taxes and created twice as many jobs, and now Christina Romer, the President's economic adviser, when she's been pressed on news interviews on two separate occasions in May and again in July about where are the jobs and why isn't the stimulus working, she said, well, the tax cuts in the stimulus bill are working.

How ironic. We should have done it right the first time.

Mr. Chair, there is an amendment to this bill that should have been made in order, but was not.

The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill before us today includes a modest investment of $12 million to provide an educational lifeline to a few lucky disadvantaged students living in our nation's capital.

We are all too painfully aware of the challenges facing the public school system in the District of Columbia, where less than half of elementary students are proficient in reading and math. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee are working hard to turn this around, and I applaud their efforts.

But change can't happen fast enough for the District's children. That's why Congress created a three-sector plan to improve education for all students. Students could choose to attend their traditional neighborhood public school, a charter school, or a private school--if they were lucky enough to win a scholarship lottery.

Sadly, this Democratic majority and the Obama Administration have backed away from this bipartisan, fair approach that lets District parents decide what school is best for their child. This majority has cut off the scholarship option for any student who is not already in the program.

Earlier this spring, the Department of Education actually rescinded more than 200 scholarships from new students who had been told they would be able to attend the private school their parents had chosen for them this fall.

Instead, these students will now be forced to attend a D.C. public school--one they did not choose, and one that may be failing academically or expose their child to physical danger. Adding insult to injury, some of these children are being separated from older siblings who were lucky enough to receive a scholarship in the past.

This matter is best illustrated by The Washington Post, which featured the plight of one mother, Latasha Bennett, in a July 10 editorial.

The Post reports that Ms. Bennett is ``in an understandable panic over where her daughter will go to kindergarten next month. She had planned on the private school where her son (already a scholarship recipient) excels, but, without the voucher she was promised, she can't afford the tuition.''

What the amendment that was rejected by this Democratic majority would have done is help Ms. Bennett and the thousands of District parents who are trying to give their children the opportunities they never had. It's that simple.

The parents who are fortunate enough to participate in the program are grateful for the opportunity these scholarships provide their children, and students are taking advantage of the benefits. After three years of study we know parents remain highly satisfied with their children's schools, and participating students are ahead of their counterparts in D.C. public schools in reading.

In fact, the lead independent researcher, Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, has called this program a success. In written testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform, he stated the ``D.C. OSP has met a tough standard of efficacy in serving low income inner city students.'' Further, in responding to a question from the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Wolf agreed the D.C. OSP is one of the most effective national programs he has studied.

This type of success should translate into an expansion of the program. Instead, this Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on this bill actually praises the Democratic majority for taking away families' choices, stating, ``The Administration also appreciates the Committee's support for continuing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program for only those students currently enrolled in the program.''

The reaction from D.C. residents is telling: More than 7,000 D.C. residents have signed a petition imploring Congress to keep the program alive.

Further, seven members of the D.C. Council also have petitioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan to reverse his decision. In their letter, the members say ``we believe we simply cannot turn our backs on these families because doing so will deny their children the quality education they deserve.''

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has helped thousands of low- income students in Washington go to the school of their choice-- including the exclusive Sidwell Friends School attended by the President's own children.

The President obviously chose the school he thought was best for his daughters. Why shouldn't every parent have that opportunity? I am ashamed this majority will not even allow Congress to debate whether or not to continue the program and the benefits it provides to families in the District of Columbia. What a travesty.

This Administration has spoken about ``green shoots'' when it discusses hopeful signs in our weakened economy.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a ``green shoot'' in the weakened school system of this nation's capital city--and we are letting it die.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the actions of two brave men from my district, Mr. Harlan Stokes and his son Charlie.

Last August, Harlan, an Eagle Scout himself, and Charlie, who was well on his way to earning his Eagle Scout rank, set out to conquer Longs Peak in the Rocky Mountain National Park. Little did they know they would need all of their scout training before the day was done.

As the two reached the top of the mountain, a powerful storm hit, bringing with it gale-force winds, rain and hail. Harlan and Charlie quickly headed down the mountain; but as they went down, they found other less prepared hikers. Bravely staying to help, they gathered those they had found and ran for shelter in a nearby cave. Over the next 2 hours, the father-son duo selflessly cared for 23 hikers while they themselves began to suffer from hypothermia.

As a result of their courageous actions, all 23 hikers made it off the mountain safely. To honor their heroism, the two were awarded one of the Boy Scouts' most prestigious awards, the National Medal of Merit.

Today we salute their bravery and honor their selflessness. Harlan and Charlie's story exemplifies the qualities of the Boy Scouts of America and represents the best that America has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding the time.

It seems sometimes like only yesterday when I was wearing that uniform and was serving in the Pentagon and in the Office of Secretary of Defense and dealing with the acquisition morass, and that's, in fact, what it was.

When you look at the history of how the Pentagon has gone about making these purchases, you see President after President, Secretary of Defense after Secretary of Defense, senior officials, Republicans or Democrats, recognizing that the system was broken. We were wasting money. Cost overruns were the norm. Yet, even recognizing that there was a problem and vowing to fix it, they couldn't do it. Try as they might, panel after panel, effort after effort, hiring different people, firing people, it continued year after year after year, cost overruns, stealing money away from the American people and delaying the delivery of weapons systems that our troops need now in a system that's just not functioning.

I know that I sensed the frustration personally as I was sitting there with them as they struggled with how to fix this. They couldn't do it.

So when I came to Congress, now going on 7 years ago, and I was fortunate and honored to join the House Armed Services Committee, I started raising that question and pointing out to witness after witness that we couldn't seem to fix this system. So I was delighted, absolutely delighted, when the chairman of the committee

and the ranking member, Mr. McHugh, as has been discussed, said, You know what we're going to do? We're going to work on this from Congress, and we're going to do it the right way. We're going to take a blank piece of paper and put it down in front of a bipartisan panel, led by my able friend from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, by my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, by a wonderful panel of people, and by great staff, as has already been mentioned and commended by a number of speakers. They said, Go and see what you can do to fix this problem. Focus in on major acquisitions programs, and go fix it. A blank piece of paper. A bipartisan effort.

As a result of that, we have legislation that is going to be passed-- I trust overwhelmingly--because I don't know of anyone, frankly, in this body or in the other who doesn't think this is a great idea and that it needs to be done. We're going to pass this legislation and get it to the President, and we're going to change the law and provide some help to the very able people in the Pentagon who have been wringing their hands and who have been struggling on how to fix this for literally decades.

So this piece of legislation went through rapidly, as has been pointed out, but not in haste. It was put together the right way. The problem was recognized across the board. We had a hearing, which I thought was a tremendous hearing, with a panel of real experts. They agreed that this was the right way to go. I remember asking a question because I thought it was an important one as we look at legislation like this.

I said, Does this do any harm? Absolutely not, was the answer.

This is what we ought to be doing. I'm very proud to support it. I hope all of my colleagues will support it. As has been suggested, I hope this is the model for how this House will work in the future--with a blank piece of paper and with a bipartisan effort to draft legislation that comes out to be good legislation that is good for America.

So, again, I want to thank those who did the work. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to oppose the rule under consideration. By refusing to allow us to debate pertinent amendments that address some of the many challenges facing our public schools, this rule prevents my colleagues and me from improving upon the good intentions of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.

Similar to legislation passed last summer, the bill we are about to consider commits billions of dollars in funding to public schools for modernization, repair, and renovation projects. I agree with Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller who said in support of this bill: ``Especially in this economy, with state budgets dwindling, schools have fewer resources to make classrooms top-notch learning environments for students . . . No student should have to learn in a classroom or school that is literally falling apart.'' I couldn't agree more.

But I wonder whether there might be a better way to address these challenges than to throw even more federal dollars at the problems and add to our rapidly growing federal debt.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that by fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we would free up desperately needed resources schools across America could use to address their specific needs--whether it is state of the art classrooms, additional teachers, or new textbooks.

In the Education and Labor committee last week, and again before the Rules Committee yesterday, I introduced an amendment that would prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for this bill until Congress fulfills its commitment to provide 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for special education. Unfortunately, partisanship prevailed, and members will not have the opportunity to vote on my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, our nation's schools have been waiting patiently for Congress to fulfill its promise to provide full federal funding IDEA for far too long. It is time for government to live up to its promises and provide our schools the resources they so desperately need.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.